RE: Ripping Level Question (help?)

[garym]

Re: Ripping Level Question (help?)

Gary, Oh dear, you mean just opening WMP causes your music-files to be manipulated? I had no idea of that. I hate the damn thing but can't uninstall it because its woven into Windows Essentials. I have DISABLED it though:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1613[/ATTACH]

My work PC has something called Groove-Music on it, and my home PC CyberLink:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1614[/ATTACH]

CyberLink plays videos so I am not sure if is disabled it I would need to replace it?

dont have either so can't comment.

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Ripping Level Question (help?)

If my files are compatible with most, and hopefully all players, it keeps things simple, and saves time and effort, if I change my player in the future. Folder.jpg is widely recognised.

Oggy, OK, best to keep things plain and simple then. Paul

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Ripping Level Question (help?)

I was never actually a WMP user. But I always had it on my windows machines by default. And unfortunately, I discovered that just accidentally opening the program (with all its settings at default) could access my music files and do stuff to them, particularly with regard to art and ID tags. In all my recent windows installs, I never finalize the WMP setup, so even if I accidentally try to open it, it tells me that I need to "set it up" (and of course by then I can exit the program).

Gary, Oh dear, you mean just opening WMP causes your music-files to be manipulated? I had no idea of that. I hate the damn thing but can't uninstall it because its woven into Windows Essentials. I have DISABLED it though:



My work PC has something called Groove-Music on it, and my home PC CyberLink:



CyberLink plays videos so I am not sure if is disabled it I would need to replace it?

[garym]

Re: Ripping Level Question (help?)

Gee man, you really have been there and bought the tee-shirt! I totally hear you now Gary. Yes, the freedom and simplicity of converting via batch-processing is much more favourable than one-by-one! And so I will take your kind advice and leave things as they are. As I say, everything looks great in foobar.

So you are also a self-confessed WMP ex-consumer! Cheers,Paul

I was never actually a WMP user. But I always had it on my windows machines by default. And unfortunately, I discovered that just accidentally opening the program (with all its settings at default) could access my music files and do stuff to them, particularly with regard to art and ID tags. In all my recent windows installs, I never finalize the WMP setup, so even if I accidentally try to open it, it tells me that I need to "set it up" (and of course by then I can exit the program).

[Oggy]

Re: Ripping Level Question (help?)

I'd let sleeping dogs lie. Leave it at folder.jpg. This is a standard that many players recognize. I happen to use cover.jpg (also a typical standard, and based on a decision years ago that had to do with WMP accessing (and messing up) art files (if named folder) but not if named cover). The issue I have with [album name].jpg has to do with simple conversions later on. Let's say a future player I use doesn't recognize "cover.jpg" but does recognize folder.jpg. Then I can run a single batch file across my music directories to convert any "cover.jpg' to "folder.jpg". Easy! But if all my files are named after the album title, then I would have a MASSIVE job to rename them all to something that works. The album folder that my art is in tells me which album I'm looking at, so I don't find any value in having the art named after the album itself.

There's many good points in there. Firstly, what is the advantage of having a folder in a folder, with the same name, and secondly, compatibility. If my files are compatible with most, and hopefully all players, it keeps things simple, and saves time and effort, if I change my player in the future. Folder.jpg is widely recognised.

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Ripping Level Question (help?)

why not leave it at folder.jpg. Nothing wrong with that and it is standard (it's the default setting after all).

Another very valid reason I guess!

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Ripping Level Question (help?)

I'd let sleeping dogs lie. Leave it at folder.jpg. This is a standard that many players recognize. I happen to use cover.jpg (also a typical standard, and based on a decision years ago that had to do with WMP accessing (and messing up) art files (if named folder) but not if named cover). The issue I have with [album name].jpg has to do with simple conversions later on. Let's say a future player I use doesn't recognize "cover.jpg" but does recognize folder.jpg. Then I can run a single batch file across my music directories to convert any "cover.jpg' to "folder.jpg". Easy! But if all my files are named after the album title, then I would have a MASSIVE job to rename them all to something that works. The album folder that my art is in tells me which album I'm looking at, so I don't find any value in having the art named after the album itself.

Gee man, you really have been there and bought the tee-shirt! I totally hear you now Gary. Yes, the freedom and simplicity of converting via batch-processing is much more favourable than one-by-one! And so I will take your kind advice and leave things as they are. As I say, everything looks great in foobar.

So you are also a self-confessed WMP ex-consumer! Cheers,Paul

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Ripping Level Question (help?)

Hi Paul,

Two reasons I didn't use rear art, firstly, as you've found, the lack of good quality rear covers, and secondly, how I would use them. If you want good quality art, I would suggest that you can scan, a lot of CD sleeves, both front and back, and optimise them, in 45 minutes

Thanks Oggy, Well I don't mind it if the process takes 45 mins and the end result is good. Its when I waste 45 mins and all I have done is go round in some big Google search circle that I get cheesed-off! Thanks, Paul

[garym]

Re: Ripping Level Question (help?)

Hi Oggy, I suppose I could just set it to 'Cover.jpeg' now, instead. It sounds easier than having to re-name as 'Album.jpeg'. Do you think thats the best choice, please? Cheers, Paul

why not leave it at folder.jpg. Nothing wrong with that and it is standard (it's the default setting after all).

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Ripping Level Question (help?)

<duplicate>

[Oggy]

Re: Ripping Level Question (help?)

Hi JH, Yes, sourcing suitable rear albums covers is a pain in the butt. I have spent up to 45 mins per search! It's just not worth it because the main objective is to rip ones music, not spend hours on Google Images! If I find myself getting really fussy after ripping all my music, then I will experiment with the scanner option. In any event, at least 50% of the time, the main/best artwork is on the front cover - rather than the rear. Thanks, Paul

Hi Paul,

Two reasons I didn't use rear art, firstly, as you've found, the lack of good quality rear covers, and secondly, how I would use them. If you want good quality art, I would suggest that you can scan, a lot of CD sleeves, both front and back, and optimise them, in 45 minutes

[garym]

Re: Ripping Level Question (help?)

Hi JH, thanks a lot. If I wanted to make the appropriate setting (ie. 'album title') within dBpa then would it need to change as per screenshot:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1612[/ATTACH]

However, if it seems to be all working OK - as it does at the moment - with 'folder.jpeg', then would you let sleeping dogs lie? I mean, would I be gaining very much by switching to '[filename].jpeg', please? And is it going to be a big job amending all of the rips I have made so far? Thanks, Paul

I'd let sleeping dogs lie. Leave it at folder.jpg. This is a standard that many players recognize. I happen to use cover.jpg (also a typical standard, and based on a decision years ago that had to do with WMP accessing (and messing up) art files (if named folder) but not if named cover). The issue I have with [album name].jpg has to do with simple conversions later on. Let's say a future player I use doesn't recognize "cover.jpg" but does recognize folder.jpg. Then I can run a single batch file across my music directories to convert any "cover.jpg' to "folder.jpg". Easy! But if all my files are named after the album title, then I would have a MASSIVE job to rename them all to something that works. The album folder that my art is in tells me which album I'm looking at, so I don't find any value in having the art named after the album itself.

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Ripping Level Question (help?)

Because you didn't change the default. I did...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1611[/ATTACH]

...although I never use it now.

Yup. Here's my foobar settings for front cover art:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1610[/ATTACH]

I either added "Cover.jpg" or moved it to the top of the list; I don't recall which. I prefer "Cover.jpg" mainly because I find it to be a better description.

N.B. If you use the album name for your cover art, you'll have to make sure the image file is named exactly as it is in the album title tag. I have a hard time getting "Cover" wrong.

Hi JH, thanks a lot. If I wanted to make the appropriate setting (ie. 'album title') within dBpa then would it need to change as per screenshot:



However, if it seems to be all working OK - as it does at the moment - with 'folder.jpeg', then would you let sleeping dogs lie? I mean, would I be gaining very much by switching to '[filename].jpeg', please? And is it going to be a big job amending all of the rips I have made so far? Thanks, Paul

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: Ripping Level Question (help?)

You're saving only one instance of each image (in a disc folder) rather than an instance in every track in an album. That alone saves a lot of storage space. (I have 14TB of storage in a 5-drive NAS. While that's a ton of space, I still don't see any sense in wasting it.) And it's a lot easier to replace album art if, e.g., you find a much better example.

I haven't seen very many album back covers online. And since I limit my album art to 500x500 px, any text on them would look like smudges anyway.

I probably take more time overall by processing scans of my CD covers in Photoshop instead of searching online, but I'm nearly always happier with the result. Not only that, I get a lot of practice with PS. So that's a tradeoff I'm glad to make.

Hi JH, Yes, sourcing suitable rear albums covers is a pain in the butt. I have spent up to 45 mins per search! It's just not worth it because the main objective is to rip ones music, not spend hours on Google Images! If I find myself getting really fussy after ripping all my music, then I will experiment with the scanner option. In any event, at least 50% of the time, the main/best artwork is on the front cover - rather than the rear. Thanks, Paul

[garym]

Re: Ripping Level Question (help?)

Yes, the LMS, Library Statistics, are most helpful! I'm showing, 3,476 Total Albums, today.

I also used Mp3tag, to create the Excel, listing.

Does the Audio Info, Utility Codec, work the same way?

I haven't played around with the Audio Info codec.